Privy Council Court January 1943 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
T.R. Bhawani Shankar Joshi and Another Vs. Gordhandas Jamnadas and Ano ...
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-26-1943
SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This appeal arises out of an application made under R.16 of O. 21, Civil PC : 16. Where a decree ... is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the Court which passed it, and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by such decree-holder. Provided that where the decree .... has been transferred by assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and the judgment-debtor, and the decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections (if any) to its execution. On 19th February 1924, F. Friedmann's Diamanthandel Maatachappij (F. Friedmann's Diamond Trading Co., Ltd.), herein called "the Dutch company," obtained from the High Court at Madras in its original jurisdiction a decree for Rs. 24,207-4-0 with certain interest and costs against one Ramanath Joshi the appellants' father. He di...
Gopal Das and Another Vs. Sri Thakurji and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-22-1943
SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad dated 3rd October 1935, affirming a decree of 7th November 1930, by which the Subordinate Judge at Benares dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs claim as reversioners of one Parshotam Das who died in 1883, a Hindu governed by the Benares school of law. Harish Chandra, whose name stands at the head of the pedigree table, died in 1856 leaving a widow, whose name was Manki, three daughters (one born posthumously), but no son. In 1860 the widow adopted Parshotam Das, then about five years old. When he died, in 1883 he left a widow Bindeshri and two daughters Mohan and Sohan. Manki Bahu his adoptive mother survived him and died in 1893. His daughter Sohan was married to Mukandi Lal and the plaintiffs Gopal Das and Baldeo Das are her sons. Thus, when Parshotam Das died Bindeshri inherited his property. When she died in 1916 her daughters succeeded, but in 1926 they executed a deed of relinquishme...
Bhabatarini Debi Vs. Ashalata Debi and Others
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-22-1943
SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This suit was brought in the High Court at Calcutta on 22nd August 1933. The plaintiff was Bhabatarini daughter and only child then surviving of one Sital Chandra Banerjee, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga, who had died in 1929. He had in his lifetime established certain family idols and had dedicated to them considerable properties moveable and immovable. His only son Panchanan had died in 1932 leaving a widow Asmantara and three daughters. By her suit Bhabatarini claimed to have become on the death of Panchanan entitled to the sebaiti of the idols and to the management of the debutter property. She impleaded Asmantara, and her daughters as persons wrongfully in possession of the debutter properties and faslely claiming to be sebaits : though as between themselves the widow on ordinary principles of succession would of course take before the daughters. Bhabatarini and Asmantara have both died while the present appeal to His Majesty was pending, the former on 15th F...
Abraham S. Marrache Vs. Herminia Ashton
Court: Privy Council
Decided on: Jan-22-1943
LORD MACMILLAN: The question at issue between the parties to this appeal is as to the legal equivalent in sterling at Gibraltar on 25th May 1939, of certain amounts of Spanish pesetas. By a mortgage dated 28th October 1931, on freehold property in Gibraltar the appellant Marrache covenanted to pay to the respondent Onos on 31st October 1936, "the sum of 50,000 pesetas" in consideration of an advance of this amount. By a second mortgage on the same property dated 22nd November 1933, the appellant Marrache covenanted in similar terms to repay to the respondent Ashton on 31st October 1936, a loan of "the sum of 25,000 pesetas." And by a third mortgage also on the same property dated 28th March 1934 the appellant Marrache covenanted to repay to the respondent Ashton on 31st October 1936, "the sum of 35,000 pesetas," being the amount of a further loan. On 25th May 1939, the respondent Ashton took out a writ of summons in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar against the appellant Marrache claiming...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›